Session overview
- The parliamentary budget officer's report dominated QP, with the CPC claiming it confirmed a Conservative surplus was inherited and Liberals using selective PBO quotes to defend their deficit spending plan.
- The Minister of International Trade's trip to Hollywood and appearance on Bill Maher's show drew repeated CPC attacks over whether Time Warner booked her hotel, whether her meetings with Ben Domenech and Senator Angus King were genuine, and whether the nearly $20,000 trip was a real trade mission.
- The Pacific NorthWest LNG project's environmental review triggered a cluster of exchanges, with the CPC pressing the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for a timeline and the minister committing to a decision within 90 days of receiving required information from the proponent.
- The NDP pressed on the mental health crisis in indigenous communities, specifically citing the $350,000 mental wellness framework budget and the case of Attawapiskat, with the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs committing to land-based programming for youth.
- National defence procurement drew CPC criticism over the $3.7-billion defence cut and delays to the Arctic offshore patrol ships, Cyclone helicopters, and CF-18 replacement, with the government responding that it was aligning procurement and fiscal cycles.
- Two attempts to pass a unanimous consent motion declaring ISIL responsible for genocide against Christians, Yazidis, and Shia Muslims failed, with competing wording proposed by Rona Ambrose and Pam Goldsmith-Jones both blocked.
The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard disclosed the specific operational reason for deferring the Louis S. St-Laurent dry dock contract â lack of available space at the Davie shipyard â and confirmed the vessel will participate in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea program in the Arctic this summer.
Highly specific: names Bill C-7, cites specific clauses (40 and 42), references concrete committee testimony about the Lloydminster detachment disparity, and asks a precise question about striking those clauses.
When asked directly why the President of the Treasury Board was failing to comply with his own department's March 31 expense-posting rule, Brison did not address the compliance question at all and instead pivoted to praising the Minister of International Trade's international reputation and career.
Outstanding questions
- Blaine Calkins asked who specifically booked the Minister of International Trade's hotel in Hollywood if her department handled all arrangements â the parliamentary secretary confirmed nothing about the Time Warner booking allegation.
- Thomas Mulcair asked what the Prime Minister personally had done to end the requirement that veterans like Master Corporal Paul Franklin submit annual forms to prove permanent disabilities â no specific action was identified in response.
- Charlie Angus asked the finance minister whether he would add new resource dollars for mental health services for indigenous children to the budget now, given only $350,000 was allocated to the mental wellness framework for the entire country â the parliamentary secretary did not respond to the dollar-figure challenge.
- HĂ©lĂšne LaverdiĂšre asked why the Liberals voted down a proposed transparent subcommittee to study arms exports, given the government's stated commitment to transparency on the Saudi arms deal â the Minister of Foreign Affairs did not explain the vote against the subcommittee.
- Erin O'Toole asked the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to strike clauses 40 and 42 from Bill C-7 to address the Lloydminster detachment inequity â the minister deferred entirely to committee without committing to or rejecting the specific request.
Ambrose cites the parliamentary budget officer's confirmation that Conservatives left a surplus and asks why the Prime Minister continues to mislead Canadians on basic facts.
Cites the parliamentary budget officer's confirmation of a surplus and holds the PM to a specific factual claim, but frames it with 'mislead Canadians' rhetoric rather than a sharp single ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the independent parliamentary budget officer confirmed what the finance department and leading economists have been saying, that in fact the Conservatives left the Liberals a surplus. However, instead of celebrating this achievement, the Liberals are playing politics and pretending like it did not even happen. Why does the Prime Minister continue to mislead Canadians on basic facts?
Trudeau praises the parliamentary budget officer and pivots to the government's commitments to invest in Canadians and provide a larger, tax-free child benefit.
Pivots entirely to child benefit investments without addressing the surplus finding or the accusation of misleading Canadians.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this government supports and applauds the parliamentary budget officer for his excellent work. We continue to work with him to demonstrate the level of openness and transparency that all Canadians expect from this side of the House. The fact is we made commitments to invest in Canadians, to give a larger, tax-free child benefit to nine out of 10 Canadian families, and that is exactly what we are doing with our investments today.
Ambrose states the budget has been called the least transparent in 15 years and that deficit and job creation numbers are way off the mark, asking how Canadians can have confidence the PM will protect their jobs.
References the claim that the budget is 'the least transparent in 15 years' and that deficit and job creation numbers are off the mark, but the question about Canadians' confidence in job protection is vague and compound.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the surplus is real whether the Liberals want to admit it or not. Frankly, it should not take an expert in quantum computing to recognize that fact. The budget has been called the least transparent in 15 years and the Liberals' deficit and job creation numbers are way off the mark. If the Prime Minister will not acknowledge basic facts, how can Canadians have confidence that he will protect their jobs?
Trudeau says Canadians chose a vision to invest in communities, create jobs, put more money in the pockets of the middle class, and generate growth that did not happen under the previous government.
Entirely deflects to the last election mandate and growth rhetoric, ignoring the specific claims about transparency, deficit numbers, and jobs.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, last Fall, Canadians chose a vision that was going to invest in this country, invest in our communities, create jobs and opportunities, and put more money in the pockets of the middle class and those working hard to join the middle class. It would create the kind of growth that for 10 years, under the previous government, simply did not happen for Canadians. We committed to invest in our future and that is exactly what the Liberal Party is doing.
Ambrose, citing a meeting with B.C. mayors and figures of $175 billion in business investment and up to 100,000 new jobs, asks the PM to confirm he supports LNG projects moving forward.
Cites specific figures ($175 billion in business investment, up to 100,000 new jobs) for B.C. LNG and references a meeting with mayors, making a reasonably grounded ask about the PM's support for LNG.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I met with mayors from British Columbia who are struggling with high unemployment in their communities. These families want to get back to work. The B.C. LNG industry could create $175 billion in business investment and up to 100,000 new jobs, but these projects need to move forward. So far, all we have seen is uncertainty from the Liberals. Will the Prime Minister stand up and tell these families that he has their backs and he supports LNG?
Trudeau says the previous government could not get things done for the natural resources sector because it thought you had to choose between the environment and the economy, and claims his government does both.
Does not address LNG, the $175 billion figure, the jobs number, or the ask about supporting these families; instead deflects to the environment-economy false choice argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the party opposite could not get things done for the natural resources sector right across the country. The reason it could not and the reason the Conservatives still do not get it is they think that they have to make a choice between what is good for the environment and the economy. What Canadians said loudly and clearly last Fall was that they needed a government that did both of them together, that cared for the economy and the environment at the same time. That is exactly what we are doing on this side of the House.
Lebel cites the parliamentary budget officer's confirmation of a Conservative surplus and asks why the Prime Minister will not admit that a surplus d'opération was left for the current year.
Directly references the parliamentary budget officer's confirmation of a surplus and asks the PM to admit that a surplus d'opération was left for the current year, making a specific factual ask.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, hier, le directeur parlementaire du budget confirmait que l'ancien gouvernement conservateur avait laissé un surplus budgétaire au gouvernement actuel. Le premier ministre et son ministre des Finances sont maintenant les seuls à pouvoir reconnaßtre cette réalité. Encore tout à l'heure, on disait faire confiance au directeur parlementaire du budget. Alors, pourquoi le premier ministre n'admet-il pas que nous avons laissé un surplus d'opération pour l'année en cours?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the parliamentary budget officer confirmed that the former Conservative government left the current government a budget surplus. The Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance are now the only ones who can acknowledge that fact. Earlier, the government said it trusts the parliamentary budget officer. Why, then, will the Prime Minister not admit that we left an operating surplus for the current year?
Trudeau says the government encourages the parliamentary budget officer, is working with him for greater transparency, and is making massive strategic investments for Canadians' future.
Repeats praise for the parliamentary budget officer and pivots to strategic investments and middle-class growth without addressing the surplus question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, comme je l'ai dit, nous encourageons le directeur parlementaire du budget. Nous travaillons toujours avec lui pour offrir un meilleur niveau de transparence aux Canadiens, ce qu'ils n'ont pas vu pendant les 10 ans de gouvernance du parti qui se retrouve à l'opposition aujourd'hui. La réalité est que nous sommes en train de faire des investissements stratégiques massifs dans l'avenir des Canadiens pour créer de la croissance, mettre plus d'argent dans les poches des gens de la classe moyenne et nous assurer que tous les Canadiens ont un meilleur avenir.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we support the parliamentary budget officer. We continue to work with him to improve transparency for Canadians, something they did not see at all during the 10 years that today's opposition party was in power. The reality is that we are making massive strategic investments in Canadians' future to create growth, put more money in the pockets of the middle class, and ensure that all Canadians have a better future.
Lebel cites both the current and former parliamentary budget officers on the budget's lack of transparency â the least informative in 15 years â and asks why the PM refuses to give full information to the parliamentary budget officer.
Cites both the current and former parliamentary budget officers on the lack of transparency and the claim that the budget is the least informative in 15 years, asking specifically why the PM refuses to give full information to the parliamentary budget officer.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, l'actuel directeur parlementaire du budget et l'ancien directeur parlementaire du budget parlent du manque de transparence du gouvernement dans son budget. Depuis 15 ans, il n'y a jamais eu aussi peu d'information qu'il y en a actuellement. On entend des paroles, mais pas des faits. Les Canadiens se rendent compte qu'ils ne peuvent pas faire confiance à ce gouvernement. Pourquoi le premier ministre refuse-t-il de donner toute l'information au directeur parlementaire du budget et de donner l'heure juste aux Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the current and former parliamentary budget officers have spoken out about the government's lack of transparency in its budget. In 15 years, there has never been as little information as there is now. We hear rhetoric, but we are not getting facts. Canadians are realizing that they cannot trust this government. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to give all the information to the parliamentary budget officer and set the record straight with Canadians?
Trudeau says Canadians turned their backs on the former government six months ago because it formed the most secretive government in Canadian history, and claims his government offers openness, transparency, rigour, and accountability.
Deflects entirely to the previous government's record on secrecy and claims the current government offers openness and transparency, without addressing the specific information-withholding allegation.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, cela fait six mois que les Canadiens ont tournĂ© le dos Ă cet ancien gouvernement. MĂȘme aujourd'hui, ils n'arrivent pas Ă croire que le Parti conservateur continue de prĂ©tendre qu'il veut parler de transparence et d'ouverture, puisque celui-ci a formĂ© le gouvernement le plus secret de l'histoire du Canada. C'est pourquoi les Canadiens ont choisi une voie d'ouverture, de transparence, de rigueur et de responsabilitĂ©. C'est exactement ce que nous offrons, comme gouvernement.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, six months ago, Canadians turned their backs on the former government. Even today, they cannot believe that the Conservative Party continues to claim it wants to talk about transparency and openness, since the Conservatives formed the most secretive government in Canadian history. That is why Canadians chose openness, transparency, discipline, and accountability. That is exactly what we offer as a government.
Mulcair raises the case of caporal Paul Franklin, who lost both legs in Afghanistan and must annually re-prove his disability through paperwork, asking what the PM personally has done to end this ignoble situation.
Uses the specific case of caporal Paul Franklin, who lost both legs in Afghanistan, to illustrate veterans being required annually to fill out forms to prove permanent disabilities, and asks what the PM personally has done to end this situation.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, parfois, le traitement du gouvernement vis-à -vis de nos anciens combattants est tellement sans coeur que cela dépasse l'entendement. Le caporal Paul Franklin a perdu ses deux jambes en Afghanistan. Pourtant, chaque année, comme beaucoup d'autres anciens combattants, il est obligé de remplir une panoplie de formulaires pour prouver qu'il a toujours perdu ses jambes. Maintenant que ce cas et d'autres ont été exposés au grand jour, le premier ministre peut-il nous dire ce que lui, personnellement, a fait pour mettre fin à cette situation ignoble?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government can be incomprehensibly heartless in its dealings with veterans. Corporal Paul Franklin lost both of his legs in Afghanistan, but, like many other veterans, he has to fill in a pile of forms every year to prove that he is still missing both legs. Now that this and other cases have come to light, can the Prime Minister tell us what he has personally done to put an end to this intolerable situation?
Trudeau says the Liberal Party has always stood up for veterans, that the previous government failed them, and that the last budget included historic investments for veterans.
Does not address the specific re-application paperwork problem or what the PM personally did; instead speaks generally about standing up for veterans and historic budget investments.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, pendant la campagne Ă©lectorale et dans les annĂ©es qui ont menĂ© Ă cette campagne Ă©lectorale de l'automne passĂ©, le Parti libĂ©ral s'est toujours tenu debout avec les anciens combattants. Il a toujours Ă©tĂ© lĂ pour eux et pour dĂ©fendre leurs intĂ©rĂȘts. En effet, nous avons vu un gouvernement qui, non seulement par ses dĂ©sirs politiques mais aussi par la gestion de la fonction publique, n'Ă©tait pas Ă la hauteur pour ce qui Ă©tait de bien servir nos anciens combattants. C'est pour cela que, dans le dernier budget, nous nous sommes engagĂ©s envers nos anciens combattants Ă des investissements historiques. C'est pourquoi nous sommes toujours Ă l'Ă©coute. Nous reconnaissons Ă quel point nous avons une obligation solennelle envers nos anciens combattants.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign and in the years leading up to last fall's campaign, the Liberal Party always stood by veterans. It has always been there for them, fighting for their interests. Because of its political objectives and its approach to managing the public service, the previous government was unable to serve our veterans properly. That is why, in the latest budget, we made a commitment to our veterans backed by historic investments. That is why we are continually listening to them. We acknowledge our great and solemn obligation to our veterans.
Mulcair presses the PM on what he has personally done to stop veterans like Master Corporal Paul Franklin â who lost both legs and was denied a wheelchair without a new doctor's note â from having to repeatedly re-prove permanent disabilities.
Repeats and sharpens the case of Master Corporal Paul Franklin â who lost his wheelchair for lack of a doctor's note â pressing specifically on what the PM has done to end this intolerable situation.
Source text
Straight to his talking points, Mr. Speaker. Why are we not surprised? Here is the question. Master Corporal Paul Franklin lost both legs serving this country bravely in Afghanistan. Every year, like numerous other veterans, he is obliged to fill out a pile of forms to prove that he still has not gotten his legs back. He lost his wheelchair because he could not produce another doctor's note. The question to the Prime Minister was not what his talking notes are on veterans. The question to the Prime Minister was, what has he done to put an end to this intolerable situation for our veterans?
Trudeau cites his mandate letter to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the reopening of nine Veterans Affairs offices, and increased funding to those helping veterans, while blaming the previous government.
Lists some concrete actions (mandate letter, reopening nine Veterans Affairs offices, increased funding) but does not address the specific paperwork re-application problem or the wheelchair incident.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite well knows, I put forward a mandate letter for our Minister of Veterans Affairs that asked him to respect the sacred obligation we have as a country toward those who serve. We have made sure that we have reopened the nine Veterans Affairs offices. We have increased the funding to the people who are actually helping our veterans. We are ensuring that we are cleaning up the mess left by 10 years of a government that wrapped itself in the flag every chance it got but let our veterans down every single day.
Mulcair notes the minister was in New York announcing possible 2017 marijuana legislation and asks the PM to at least promise legislation to remove criminal records for marijuana offences in the meantime.
Notes the minister was in New York announcing possible 2017 legislation and asks specifically whether there will be legislation to remove criminal records in the interim, making it a pointed and concrete ask.
Source text
Let us talk about messes they promised to clean up, Mr. Speaker. For more than three years, they promised to legalize marijuana, yet thousands and thousands of Canadians will have criminal records for the rest of their lives because they will not even decriminalize it, something that could have been done overnight. The simple question for the Prime Minister is this. His minister was in New York, of all places, instead of here today, announcing that maybe in 2017 they will be presenting legislation to finally do something about it. In the meantime, will the Prime Minister at least promise that there will be legislation to remove the criminal records?
Trudeau defends legalization and regulation of marijuana as protecting kids and keeping money out of criminal organizations' pockets, and argues that decriminalization actually gives a legal stream of income to criminal organizations.
Does not address the question about removing criminal records or commit to any interim legislation; instead argues that decriminalization gives a legal stream of income to criminal organizations.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am always curious to see what position the member for Outremont will have on marijuana any given time he stands up in the House. The fact of the matter is we have been clear. We believe in the legalization and regulation of marijuana because it protects our kids and keeps money out of the pockets of criminal organizations and street gangs. The fact of the matter is that decriminalization, as the member proposes, actually gives a legal stream of income to criminal organizations. That is not what anyone wants in this country.
Mulcair contrasts the Liberals' three-year promise to legalize marijuana with the NDP's 40-year position on decriminalization, criticizing the Liberals for blaming others and failing to deliver on their own promise.
Invokes the Liberal election promise and the NDP's 40-year position on decriminalization, but the question trails off without a sharp explicit ask, ending on a reference to the Toronto police chief rather than a clear demand.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis trois ans, les libĂ©raux promettent de lĂ©galiser la marijuana. C'Ă©tait un pan important de leur campagne Ă©lectorale. Depuis 40 ans, le NPD a la mĂȘme position, Ă savoir qu'on peut la dĂ©criminaliser et arrĂȘter d'avoir des peines d'emprisonnement, arrĂȘter d'avoir des dossiers criminels pour une utilisation personnelle. C'est de leur promesse que nous parlons. TantĂŽt, pour ce qui est des anciens combattants, c'est la faute des conservateurs; tantĂŽt, c'est le NPD qui n'en a pas fait assez. Parlons des libĂ©raux. Ils voulaient ĂȘtre au pouvoir et ils ont fait une promesse. La seule rĂ©ponse qu'ils ont eue, c'est du chef de police de Toronto.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been promising to legalize marijuana for the past three years. It was an important part of their election campaign. The NDP has had the same position for the past 40 years, namely, that it should be decriminalized and people should not be sent to prison or saddled with criminal records for personal use. I want to talk about their promise. Earlier, regarding the veterans issue, it was the Conservatives' fault. Earlier, it was the NDP that did not do enough. Let us talk about the Liberals. They wanted to be in power, and they made a promise. The only response they received was from the Toronto police chief.
Trudeau argues that decriminalizing as the member for Outremont proposes merely gives criminal drug sellers a legal source of revenue, and reaffirms the government's commitment to legalize marijuana properly, protecting youth.
Repeats the argument against decriminalization and reaffirms the legalization promise, which is partly responsive, but still does not address the criminal records issue or the timeline.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, la réalité, c'est que décriminaliser comme le propose le député d'Outremont ne fait que donner une source de revenus légale à des criminels qui vendent de la drogue. La réalité, c'est que légaliser de la façon correcte, en protégeant nos jeunes et en s'assurant de ne pas envoyer des milliards de dollars dans les poches du crime organisé, comme on le fait actuellement, c'est la seule façon de protéger nos jeunes et nos communautés, et c'est ce que nous allons faire tel que promis.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that decriminalization, when done as the member for Outremont proposes, just gives a legal stream of income to criminals who sell drugs. The reality is that proper legalization protects our young people and keeps billions of dollars out of the pockets of criminal organizations, which is where the money is going now. Legalization is the only way to protect our young people and our communities, and that is what we are going to do, as promised.
Calkins asks who booked the Minister of International Trade's hotel stay in California, challenging her claim that she and her department alone organized the trip.
Poses a specific and narrow factual question â who booked the minister's hotel stay in Hollywood â that directly tests her claim that her department alone organized the trip.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of International Trade would like us to believe that she was gallivanting around sunny California promoting Canada and meeting with trade partners, but Canadians know the real reason she was there. She was there to promote herself on a popular U.S. TV show. The minister has stated that it was she and her department alone that organized the trip to California. If this is really the case, can she tell us who booked her stay while she was in Hollywood?
Lametti denies any wrongdoing, says all rules were followed, costs were publicly posted, and were in line with travel costs of former Conservative ministers.
Does not answer who booked the hotel rooms; instead denies any wrongdoing, states all rules were followed, costs were publicly posted, and compares costs to former Conservative ministers.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again today the Conservatives are trying to make a story where none exists. It is the job of the Minister of International Trade to promote Canada's trade interests around the world. Following the APEC summit in the Philippines, she was proud to visit California, one of our most important trading partners, where she did what she was supposed to do according to her mandate letter, which was to promote trade. The Conservative accusations about expenses are false. All the rules were followed. The costs were in line with travel by Conservative ministers in the previous government. The details were publicly posted months ago.
Calkins states that Time Warner, owner of HBO, booked the minister's hotel rooms, asks why this happened if her department handled all arrangements as she claimed, and accuses her of misleading Canadians.
Presents the specific allegation that Time Warner, which owns HBO, booked the minister's hotel rooms, directly contradicting her public statement that her department handled all arrangements, making it a sharp and factually grounded ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, then that member should have read them, because we know that the hotel rooms were booked for her by Time Warner, which of course owns HBO. When she said that her department handled all of the arrangements for this trip, she misled Canadians. She claimed that this was a trade mission, but clearly it was not. Now she is trying to cover her tracks. Why was Time Warner booking her hotel rooms if this was all planned ahead of time by her department?
Lametti says the role of the Minister of International Trade is to promote Canada worldwide and that she used the occasion to defend Canada's Syrian refugee policy, and notes that even the former PM was covered by U.S. media.
Does not address the Time Warner hotel booking allegation at all; pivots to the minister's role in promoting Canada and defending the Syrian refugee policy.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je vais essayer en français cette fois-ci. Encore une fois, les conservateurs cherchent une histoire lĂ oĂč il n'y en a pas. Ils n'aimaient pas vraiment les mĂ©dias. Toutefois, on sait que le rĂŽle de la ministre du Commerce international est justement de promouvoir le Canada partout dans le monde ainsi que les Ă©changes. Elle a aussi saisi l'occasion pour dĂ©fendre et soutenir le Canada pour sa politique envers les rĂ©fugiĂ©s syriens. MĂȘme l'ancien premier ministre de l'ancien gouvernement et le ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres ont Ă©tĂ© couverts par les mĂ©dias amĂ©ricains. De temps Ă autre, c'est trĂšs important.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, let me try this again. Once again, the Conservatives are looking for a story where there is none. They did not really like the media, but we know that it is precisely the job of the Minister of International Trade to promote Canada and its trade interests around the world. She also took the opportunity to defend and promote Canada's policy on Syrian refugees. Even the former prime minister in the previous government and the foreign affairs minister were covered by the American media. There are times when that is very important.
Brassard alleges the minister spent nearly $20,000 in taxpayers' money in LA to appear on Bill Maher's show and that her so-called round table participants, Ben Domenech and Senator Angus King, were actually panellists on the same program.
Cites a specific dollar figure of nearly $20,000, names the individuals (Ben Domenech, Maine Senator Angus King) who were supposedly at a round table but were actually panellists on the same show, making a precise and factually grounded challenge.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, what is not in his talking points is that the Minister of International Trade dropped nearly $20,000 in taxpayers' money for a stop in LA to appear on Bill Maher's show. She claims she had a round table meeting with conservative writer Ben Domenech and Maine Senator Angus King. It turns out they were actually panellists on the very same program. The minister actually thinks that the green room is a round table. Was there anything real about the minister's time spent in Hollywood with Bill Maher?
Lametti says all rules were followed, costs were publicly posted, and that over the same November-to-March period her Conservative predecessor incurred expenses more than $6,000 higher than hers.
Partially responds by addressing cost comparisons â noting the Conservative predecessor incurred expenses more than $6,000 higher over the same period â but does not address the round table allegation or the specific individuals named.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservatives are trying to create a story where none exists. The purpose of the trip to Los Angeles was to promote Canadian interests with one of our most important trading jurisdictions. All the rules were followed. All the costs were publicly posted, and they were in line with the kinds of costs incurred for travel by former Conservative ministers. In fact, over the same November-to-March period in the last year, her Conservative predecessor incurred expenses more than $6,000 higher than hers.
Brassard cites the Treasury Board's own rule requiring ministers to post travel expenses by March 31 and names the Minister of Finance, Minister of Transport, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the President of the Treasury Board as non-compliant, asking why the President of the Treasury Board is violating his own rules.
Cites a specific Treasury Board rule (posting travel expenses by March 31) and names four specific ministers â Minister of Finance, Minister of Transport, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the President of the Treasury Board himself â who have not complied, making it a concrete accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board's own department directs ministers to post all travel expenses for the last quarter by March 31. He and the Minister of Finance travelled to Switzerland, the Minister of Transport travelled to Washington, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness went to Washington and London, yet their expenses have not been posted. It is clear that the Liberals are just paying lip service to openness and transparency. Why is the President of the Treasury Board violating his own rules by hiding his expenses?
Oh, oh!
Brison says the President of the Treasury Board and all ministers follow all the rules and the government is committed to open and transparent government, before pivoting to praise for the Minister of International Trade.
Commits generally to following all Treasury Board rules but does not address why the named ministers have not posted expenses, and veers into praise for the Minister of International Trade before being interrupted.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board follows all the rules, as does every member of this cabinet. We are committed to an open and transparent government. May I say that in terms of the matter of the accusations made about our Minister of International Trade, she is a person of exceptional international reputation, somebody who came back to Canada to serve Canadians as an internationally recognized expert on the economy and issues of inequality. We are proud to have a minister of her stature who is able to claimâ
Gourde notes that two people the minister claimed to have met â sĂ©nateur King and the lieutenant-gouverneur â were in fact guests on the same talk show, and asks the minister to confirm she went to appear on HBO.
Specifically identifies that two of the minister's listed contacts â sĂ©nateur King and the lieutenant-gouverneur â were actually guests on the same talk show, and asks the minister to confirm she went to Hollywood to appear on HBO.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, hier, pour justifier son voyage Ă Hollywood « sur le bras » des contribuables canadiens, la ministre du Commerce international a Ă©numĂ©rĂ© la liste des personnes qu'elle a rencontrĂ©es. Ă surprise! Deux des personnes en question, le sĂ©nateur King et le lieutenant-gouverneur, Ă©taient en fait invitĂ©s au mĂȘme talk show que la ministre. La ministre peut-elle cesser de tourner autour du pot et confirmer ce que l'on sait tous, Ă savoir qu'elle y est allĂ©e pour passer Ă HBO?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, to justify her trip to Hollywood at Canadian taxpayers' expense, the Minister of International Trade listed the names of the people she met with. Surprise, surprise. Two of those people, Senator King and the lieutenant governor, were invited to the same talk show as her. The minister should stop beating around the bush and confirm what we all know to be true: she went so she could be on HBO.
Lametti says the Conservatives are creating a story where none exists and that the minister's role is to promote Canada abroad in outlets including the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and BBC.
Does not address the specific allegation that the round table participants were fellow panellists; deflects to the minister's role promoting Canada in international media.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, encore une fois, les conservateurs cherchent une histoire lĂ oĂč il n'y en a pas. Que ce soit au Washington Post, au Los Angeles Times, Ă la BBC ou dans les mĂ©dias d'Europe, le rĂŽle de la ministre est justement de promouvoir le Canada Ă l'Ă©tranger. Il faut qu'elle parle aux mĂ©dias de temps Ă autre, justement pour remplir son mandat.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives are looking for a story where there is none. The minister's role is to promote Canada around the world, be that through the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the BBC, or other European media outlets. She has to talk to the media from time to time to fulfill her mandate.
Gourde cites the clear Treasury Board rule requiring expense disclosure before March 31 and names the ministers of Transport, Finance, Public Safety, and National Revenue, plus the President of the Treasury Board himself, as non-compliant, asking when Liberals will follow the rules.
Names four specific ministers â ministre des Transports, ministre des Finances, ministre de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique, and ministre du Revenu national â along with the President of the Treasury Board as late in disclosing expenses under a clear Treasury Board rule, and asks when Liberals will comply.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, une panoplie de ministres n'ont pas encore divulguĂ© les dĂ©penses des voyages qu'ils ont effectuĂ©s avant le 1er mars 2016. C'est pourtant une rĂšgle claire du Conseil du TrĂ©sor. Les ministres des Transports, des Finances, de la SĂ©curitĂ© publique et du Revenu national tardent tous Ă divulguer l'information. MĂȘme le prĂ©sident du Conseil du TrĂ©sor est en retard; il va donc Ă l'encontre des rĂšgles de son propre ministĂšre. Pourquoi les ministres cachent-ils cette information? Quand les libĂ©raux vont-ils se conformer aux rĂšgles?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, quite a few ministers have not yet disclosed travel expenses they incurred before March 1, 2016, even though Treasury Board has clear rules about that. The ministers of transport, finance, public safety, and national revenue are all behind in their disclosures. Even the President of the Treasury Board is behind. He is breaking his own department's rules. Why are these ministers hiding their information? When will the Liberals follow the rules?
Brison says ministers and the PM are committed to openness and transparency and all Treasury Board rules will be followed, before pivoting to praise for the Minister of International Trade's international reputation.
Commits to openness and transparency in general terms but does not address the named ministers' missing disclosures; pivots entirely to praise for the Minister of International Trade.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our ministers, our government, and our Prime Minister are of course committed to openness and transparency. We will follow all the rules of the Treasury Board. I just want to say, in terms of the matter of our international trade minister, an exceptional public servant, that she actually became a parliamentarian after having garnered international attention for her work as a financial journalist and a writer who actually tackled some of the biggest issues facing the world, including that of inequality. She was asked, in fact, because she has internationalâ
Saganash notes the budget contains no new investment for mental health services for indigenous youth and that Health Canada lacks sufficient workers, asking whether the minister will immediately increase mental health services funding.
The question cites a specific gap (no new mental health funding in the budget, insufficient Health Canada workers) and asks for a concrete commitment to increase funding immediately.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous espérons que les gens d'Attawapiskat puissent commencer à regarder vers l'avenir aprÚs des années si difficiles. Nous saluons l'engagement de la ministre à construire un centre pour les jeunes et à accorder des ressources pour les programmes culturels. Toutefois, il reste que le budget ne contient aucun nouvel investissement pour les services en santé mentale pour les jeunes Autochtones. De plus, Santé Canada n'a pas assez d'intervenants pour répondre aux besoins. Ma question est simple. La ministre s'engage-t-elle à augmenter immédiatement le financement des services en santé mentale?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we hope that the people of Attawapiskat can start to look to the future after some very difficult years. We commend the minister's commitment to build a youth centre and allocate resources for cultural programs. However, the budget does not contain any new investments for mental health services for indigenous young people. Furthermore, Health Canada does not have enough staff to meet the needs. My question is simple. Will the minister commit to immediately increase funding for mental health services?
Bennett expresses concern about the suicide crisis and says First Nations and Inuit Health is ready to begin land-based programming that youth requested, emphasizing hope and identity.
The minister expresses concern and mentions land-based programming but does not address the specific ask of increased mental health services funding.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, nous sommes extrĂȘmement prĂ©occupĂ©s par la vague de suicides tragiques qui sĂ©vit dans les collectivitĂ©s autochtones partout au Canada. Ă Attawapiskat, c'est aussi trĂšs important de fournir des programmes sur le terrain. I was very happy to hear that First Nations and Inuit Health is prepared right now to begin the land-based programming that the youth have asked for. We know this is about getting back hope and what exactly the youth said to me: that they want their identity back.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we are extremely concerned about the rash of tragic suicides in indigenous communities across Canada. Attawapiskat also desperately needs programs in the community. J'ai Ă©tĂ© trĂšs heureuse d'apprendre que la Direction gĂ©nĂ©rale de la santĂ© des PremiĂšres Nations et des Inuits est dĂ©jĂ prĂȘte Ă mettre en oeuvre les programmes axĂ©s sur le territoire que les jeunes ont rĂ©clamĂ©s. Nous savons que c'est ce qui leur redonnera espoir, et c'est exactement ce qu'ils m'ont dit: ils veulent rĂ©cupĂ©rer leur identitĂ©.
Angus cites only $350,000 for the mental wellness framework for the entire country and asks the finance minister whether he will put resource dollars into the budget now to address the mental health crisis in indigenous communities.
Angus cites a specific dollar figure ($350,000 for the mental wellness framework) and poses a direct accountability question to the finance minister about whether he will add resources to the budget now.
Source text
I would like to thank the minister for coming with me to meet with the youth in Attawapiskat and committing to build that youth centre. It is a profound moment. However, the larger issue of the crisis in mental health services in indigenous communities remains. For example, there is only $350,000 for the mental wellness framework for the entire country. How many children is that expected to save? My question is for the finance minister. He can respond to the crisis that has taken the lives of too many indigenous children across the country by putting those resource dollars into this budget now. He has the power to act. Will he do it?
Khera cites the $8.4 billion historic investment in budget 2016 for indigenous peoples and mentions Health Canada's collaboration on the first nations mental wellness continuum framework.
Khera responds with the aggregate $8.4 billion indigenous investment figure and mentions the mental wellness continuum framework but does not address the specific $350,000 figure or the ask to add resources to the current budget.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to closing the gap in health outcomes for first nations and Inuit Canadians. In budget 2016, we outlined our historic investment of $8.4 billion to improve the socio-economic conditions for indigenous peoples and their communities. Health Canada collaborated with the Assembly of First Nations, community mental health leaders, and our government departments to develop our first nations mental wellness continuum framework.
Raitt cites the PBO report confirming the government inherited a surplus, that the Liberal plan will cost significantly more than $10 billion, and that the plan lacked important details, asking when the minister will face those facts.
Raitt references the parliamentary budget officer's report to cite three specific findings (inherited surplus, higher-than-promised costs, lack of detail) but closes with a vague rhetorical question about openness and honesty.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the parliamentary budget officer released his report on budget 2016. First, he confirmed that the government did indeed inherit a surplus from us. He also confirmed that the Liberals' plan will cost significantly more than the $10 billion that they promised Canadians. However, most importantly, he confirmed that their plan actually lacked incredibly important details. When will the minister face the facts that they talk a good game but they are really not delivering on an open and honest government?
Champagne quotes the PBO saying the budget measures will have a sizable impact on the Canadian economy and characterizes the budget as being for Canadian families and the middle class.
Champagne selectively quotes the PBO on economic impact while ignoring the three specific PBO findings Raitt raised, pivoting to a general defence of the budget.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I am so happy for the question from the hon. member. Let me quote from the independent parliamentary budget officer talking about our budget: ...we believe that ultimately these measures will have a sizable impact on the Canadian economyâ. That is what the PBO said yesterday. Our budget is for Canadian families, for the Canadian middle class. That is helping the economy. That is what the PBO says. That is what we are going to continue to do.
Raitt claims the PBO found the Liberals manipulated private sector economists' projections, padded deficit projections, and exaggerated expected jobs, asking whether the minister recognizes his economic credibility is in tatters.
Raitt raises specific PBO findings about manipulated projections, padded deficits, and exaggerated job numbers but frames it as a broad rhetorical attack on economic credibility rather than a single answerable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to have confidence in a government. The Liberals inherited a surplus from us. That is what the PBO said. They manipulated private sector economists' projections for their own purpose. They padded deficit projections by the billions, and they have exaggerated how many jobs Canadians can expect out of the budget. That is what the parliamentary budget officer said. Does the minister realize, quite frankly, that his economic credibility is in tatters and that Canadians deserve to have somebody and some government that can actually manage their tax dollars responsibly?
Champagne claims the Conservatives left a deficit because expenses went up and revenues went down in the last month of the fiscal year, and quotes the PBO saying the economy remained below potential GDP since 2008.
Champagne pivots entirely to claiming the Conservatives left a deficit and citing PBO comments on GDP below potential, never addressing the specific PBO findings Raitt cited.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand, and everyone in this House should understand, that in the last month of the fiscal year our expenses are going up and our revenues are going down. The Conservatives have left us a deficit. Let me say what the independent parliamentary budget officer said about the Conservatives. He said that the Canadians economy has remained below its level of potential GDP since 2008. Thanks to Canadians, we are going to grow this economy for Canadian families, for business, and for the middle class.
Warawa quotes the finance minister's book The Real Retirement endorsing a retirement age of around 66 to 67, and asks when the minister stopped caring about the long-term financial security of Canadian seniors.
Warawa cites a specific quote from the Minister of Finance's own book The Real Retirement with a concrete page-able statement about retirement age 66 to 67, making it a reasonably pointed accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, before becoming a Liberal, the Minister of Finance endorsed the Conservative plan to change the age of eligibility for seniors. In his book The Real Retirement, the minister wrote, âIn 20 years' time, the economy will run better if we retire around age 66 to 67 instead of the current age of 62â, but since then, the Prime Minister has told him to change his tune. When did the finance minister stop caring about the long-term financial security of Canadian seniors?
Champagne lists budget measures including tax reductions for nine million Canadians, the Canada child benefit, and investments in seniors, youth, clean tech, and innovation.
Champagne lists general budget achievements (tax reductions, Canada child benefit, seniors investment) with no reference to the minister's prior book statement or the retirement age policy change.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this budget is historic in investing in Canadians. We have reduced taxes for nine million Canadians already, which is helping our economy. We have the Canada child benefit, which is going to help nine families out of 10, lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty; and we are investing in our seniors, in youth, in clean tech, and in innovation. That is what Canadians want, and that is what we are doing.
Deltell cites the PBO's finding that reducing the retirement age will cost $11 billion more and quotes the finance minister's own book saying raising the retirement age to 67 was a step in the right direction, asking the PM to acknowledge his minister was right.
Deltell cites the PBO's costing of $11 billion and quotes the finance minister's own prior statement from The Real Retirement, asking the PM to acknowledge his minister was right, making it a specific and pointed question.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, peut-ĂȘtre qu'en français, ils vont comprendre la question. Une des mauvaises dĂ©cisions Ă©conomiques de ce gouvernement, c'est d'avoir rĂ©duit l'Ăąge de la retraite de 67 Ă 65 ans. D'ailleurs, selon le directeur parlementaire du budget, cela va coĂ»ter 11 milliards de dollars de plus. Je m'excuse, mais nous n'avons pas les moyens pour cela. D'ailleurs, c'est ce que disait, dans The Real Retirement, l'actuel ministre des Finances, et je cite: « Rendre l'Ăąge de la retraite Ă 67 ans est un pas dans la bonne direction. Dans 20 ans, l'Ă©conomie s'en portera mieux ». Je n'aurais pas pu dire mieux que cela. Le premier ministre peut-il reconnaĂźtre que son ministre des Finances avait raison dans le temps?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, maybe they will understand the question better if I try again. One of this government's bad economic decisions was to reduce the age of retirement from 67 to 65. According to the parliamentary budget officer, this is going to cost an additional $11 billion. I am sorry, but we cannot afford that. What is more, that is what the current Minister of Finance said in his book The Real Retirement, and I quote , âIn 20 years' time, the economy will run better if we retire around age 66 or 67.â I could not have put it better myself. Can the Prime Minister acknowledge that his Minister of Finance was right at the time?
Duclos says the previous government's reform lacked serious economic and social study and that reversing it prevents 100,000 seniors from falling into poverty, avoids a 35% income reduction for the poorest 20% of seniors, and saves the most vulnerable seniors $13,000.
Duclos directly addresses the retirement age policy change and provides specific figures (100,000 seniors in poverty, 35% income reduction for the poorest 20%, $13,000 loss for vulnerable seniors) justifying the reversal.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie mon collĂšgue de sa question. Je suis trĂšs heureux de constater son intĂ©rĂȘt envers les aĂźnĂ©s. Je suis sĂ»r qu'il reconnaĂźt comme moi l'importance du budget de 2016 par rapport Ă cette question. Nous avons effectivement rĂ©duit Ă 65 ans l'Ăąge d'admissibilitĂ© pour Ă©viter que 100 000 aĂźnĂ©s tombent dans la pauvretĂ© et pour ramener Ă 6 % au lieu de 17 %, le taux de pauvretĂ© chez les aĂźnĂ©s de 65 et 66 ans. Nous allons continuer Ă travailler en ce sens.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I am very pleased to see his interest in seniors. I am sure that he, like me, recognizes the importance of budget 2016 in addressing this issue. We reduced the age of eligibility to 65 in order to prevent 100,000 seniors from slipping into poverty and to bring the poverty rate of seniors aged 65 and 66 down from 17% to 6%. We will continue to work in that direction.
LaverdiĂšre notes that Ottawa consulted only the Department of National Defence on the Saudi arms deal, not human rights groups, and that Liberals used their majority to vote down a transparent subcommittee on arms exports, asking where the promised transparency is.
LaverdiĂšre raises the specific fact that Ottawa consulted only the Department of National Defence and not human rights groups, and cites the Liberal majority voting down a transparent subcommittee proposal, making it a grounded accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, on the Saudi arms deal, Ottawa consulted no human rights groups but asked only the Department of National Defence. After signing the export permit in secret, the minister repeated that the Liberals would scrutinize any future arms deal. However, when we proposed a transparent subcommittee to look at our arms exports, the Liberals used their majority to vote it down. What are they afraid of? Where is the transparency they keep talking about? When will they start walking the talk?
Dion says he takes export permit reviews very seriously and that the committee will look at legislative changes needed for Canada to become a member of the arms trade treaty.
Dion speaks generally about taking export permits seriously and mentions upcoming legislative changes for the arms trade treaty but does not address the specific allegation of excluding human rights groups from consultations or why the subcommittee was voted down.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, indeed, we take very seriously the review we are doing about the export permits. It is a very serious decision, and I assume my decision and the ones I do in the future, certainly, I will do very seriously. I am sure that the committee will work very seriously as well. The committee has a lot of work to do. We will ask the committee to look at the legislative changes that we will have to make to make sure Canada will be a member of the arms trade treaty. I look forward to working very positively with the committee.
LaverdiĂšre cites contradictions about whether the contract was a fait accompli and whether cancellation penalties existed, and asks why Liberals voted against a subcommittee for parliamentarians to study arms exports.
LaverdiĂšre identifies specific contradictions about the contract being a fait accompli and the existence of penalties, and asks why Liberals refused a parliamentary subcommittee to study arms exports, making it a reasonably specific follow-up.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, le gouvernement continue de s'enfoncer dans le dossier de la vente d'armes à l'Arabie saoudite: contradiction par rapport au fait que le contrat était un fait accompli, paraßt-il, et contradiction concernant l'existence de pénalités si le contrat était annulé. Hier, les libéraux ont voté contre notre proposition visant à créer un sous-comité pour étudier les exportations d'armes. Pourquoi est-ce que les libéraux refusent que les parlementaires fassent leur boulot? De quoi ont-ils peur?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the government keeps digging itself a deeper hole on the issue of the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. The fact that the contract was a done deal and the very existence of cancellation penalties have apparently been contradicted. Yesterday, the Liberals voted against our proposal to create a subcommittee to study arms exports. Why are the Liberals refusing to let parliamentarians do their job? What are they afraid of?
Dion asserts the contract was not half-signed but completely signed by the previous government and that he studied the export licences with great care and transparency.
Dion addresses the contract question directly by asserting it was completely signed by the previous government and explains the export licence process, but does not address why a subcommittee was voted down.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, puisque ma rĂ©ponse en anglais va ĂȘtre traduite en français dans le hansard, je ne vais pas la rĂ©pĂ©ter, parce que c'est la mĂȘme question. Toutefois, puisque la dĂ©putĂ©e m'en donne l'occasion, je vais rĂ©pĂ©ter que le contrat avait Ă©tĂ© signĂ© par le gouvernement prĂ©cĂ©dent, pas Ă moitiĂ© signĂ©, mais complĂštement signĂ©. Nous ne voulions pas renier la signature du gouvernement du Canada. DĂšs lors qu'on reconnait que le contrat est bon, les licences d'exportation arrivent sur le bureau du ministre des Affaires Ă©trangĂšres, qui les Ă©tudie avec beaucoup d'attention et de sĂ©rieux. C'est ce que nous avons fait en toute transparence.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, since the answer I gave in English will be translated into French in the Hansard, I will not repeat it because it is the same question. However, since the member is giving me the opportunity, I will repeat that the contract was signed by the previous government, not in part, but in full. We do not want to renege on the Government of Canada's signature. When the contract is deemed valid, the export licences arrive at the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who carefully and diligently examines them. That is what we did with full transparency.
De Burgh Graham asks the minister to explain how budget 2016 reverses the previous government's decision to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67.
This is a government-backbench softball setup asking the minister to explain how the budget corrects the previous government's retirement age decision, providing no real accountability challenge.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, lors de la derniĂšre campagne, plusieurs de mes concitoyens Ă©taient prĂ©occupĂ©s par le fait que le gouvernement prĂ©cĂ©dent avait augmentĂ© l'Ăąge de la retraite de 65 Ă 67 ans. Cette dĂ©cision mal conçue des conservateurs a causĂ© beaucoup d'anxiĂ©tĂ© chez les rĂ©sidants de nombreuses communautĂ©s de LaurentidesâLabelle qui souhaitent planifier leur retraite. Le ministre de la Famille, des Enfants et du DĂ©veloppement social peut-il expliquer comment le budget revoit cette mauvaise dĂ©cision pour avantager les Canadiennes et Canadiens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, many of my constituents were worried that the previous government had increased the retirement age from 65 to 67. This poorly thought-out decision by the Conservatives caused a lot of anxiety for many residents of LaurentidesâLabelle who wanted to plan for retirement. Can the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development explain how the budget will reverse this bad decision in order to benefit Canadians?
Duclos says the previous government's reform lacked serious economic and social study and that reversing it prevents 100,000 seniors from poverty, avoids a 35% income cut for the poorest 20% of seniors, and saves the most vulnerable seniors $13,000.
Duclos provides specific figures on the impact of the previous reform (100,000 seniors in poverty, 35% income reduction, $13,000 loss) offering substantive information in response.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, je remercie mon collĂšgue de son intĂ©rĂȘt pour cette importante question. Le gouvernement antĂ©rieur avait mis en place cette rĂ©forme, malheureusement, sans Ă©tude Ă©conomique et sociale sĂ©rieuse. Elle aurait mis 100 000 aĂźnĂ©s en situation de pauvretĂ©, rĂ©duit de 35 % le revenu des 20 % des aĂźnĂ©s les plus pauvres et fait perdre 13 000 $ aux aĂźnĂ©s les plus vulnĂ©rables. Nous avons dĂ©cidĂ© de renverser cette dĂ©cision et d'investir dans nos aĂźnĂ©s. Je pense que toute la Chambre devrait s'en rĂ©jouir.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interest and for this important question. The previous government unfortunately brought in this reform without conducting any serious economic and social studies. It would have plunged 100,000 seniors into poverty, lowered the income of 20% of the poorest seniors by 35%, and taken away $13,000 from the most vulnerable seniors. We have decided to reverse this decision and to invest in our seniors. I think the whole House should be pleased about that.
Fast quotes the environment minister's answer from the previous day saying she would make a decision when ready, and asks when she will realize that the uncertainty is causing investors to flee and jeopardizing a $36 billion investment.
Fast references the minister's specific answer from the previous day's QP and cites the $36 billion investment figure, making it a grounded follow-up accountability question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, during question period yesterday, the Minister of Environment was specifically asked when she would make a decision on the Pacific NorthWest LNG project in British Columbia. Her answer shocked all of us. She flippantly said, âWe will make a decision when we are ready to make a decisionâ. When will the minister realize that the uncertainty her government has created is causing investors to flee Canada and is jeopardizing a $36 billion job-creating investment in Canada?
McKenna says the proponent brought significant new information in early March raising concerns about impacts on salmon, human health, and indigenous peoples, and commits to making a decision within 90 days of receiving the necessary information.
McKenna provides substantive context by citing the March proponent submission raising concerns about salmon, human health, and indigenous peoples, and commits to a 90-day decision timeline once information is received.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unlike the party opposite, we understand that the environment and the economy go together. The only way projects will go ahead is if they are done in a sustainable way. At the beginning of March, the proponent brought significant new information that raised concerns about impacts on salmon, human health, and indigenous peoples. We are committed to doing a review that is based on science and facts, and we have said that once we have the necessary information we will make a decision within 90 days. That is what we will do.
Fast alleges that the environment minister said the decision would be based on science while the natural resources minister said it would be political, and asks whether the minister realizes her inaction is risking a $36 billion investment.
Fast raises a specific contradiction between the environment and natural resources ministers' stated bases for the decision, but the question drifts into rhetorical territory about inaction risking a $36 billion investment.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough, because the minister first claimed that her decision would be based on science. Then the natural resources minister proudly contradicted her by saying that the decision would be political. Now the minister simply says she will make the decision whenever she feels like it. That is the ultimate uncertainty. Does the minister not realize that her inaction is risking a $36 billion job-creating investment in Canada?
McKenna reiterates that decisions will be based on facts, science, and evidence, and quotes the proponent Pacific NorthWest LNG saying it will work constructively with federal agencies through the rigorous process.
McKenna repeats the 90-day commitment and quotes the proponent working constructively but does not address the alleged contradiction between herself and the natural resources minister.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my answer. We will make decisions based on facts, science, and evidence. We understand the importance of getting resources to market. However, we need to be doing it in a sustainable way. That is what we are doing. I will quote from the proponent: Pacific NorthWest LNG will work to assess this latest information request and continue to work constructively with federal agencies through this rigorous process. We are working with it. When we are prepared, we will make a decision.
Doherty claims the environment minister said LNG decisions would be made only when she feels like it, cites the justice minister's positive comments on LNG for first nations, and asks why she won't look at the actual facts and support the project.
Doherty's question is largely rhetorical, referencing a magic eight ball and an alleged agenda rather than citing specific data, though it does invoke the justice minister's LNG statement and the coal-replacement argument.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, maybe it is agenda, third party, and magic eight ball. The minister of environment rose yesterday and confirmed that LNG decisions will be made when and only when she feels like making them. She has just created another level of uncertainty. The justice minister is on record as saying that LNG remains a positive prospect for many first nations. The environment minister herself cannot deny that LNG could and would replace Chinese coal. Rather than creating more uncertainty by consulting her magic eight ball for answers, why does she not look at the actual facts and support the project?
McKenna clarifies that she committed to making a decision within 90 days of getting the information required from the proponent and that decisions will be based on science, facts, and evidence.
McKenna directly corrects the mischaracterization by restating the specific 90-day commitment and the information-first condition, which is a substantive clarification of her actual position.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the member opposite maybe did not understand what I said previously, so I will repeat it. What I said is that we are committed to making a decision within 90 days of getting the information required from the proponent. We will make decisions based on science, facts, and evidence. Because that is what Canadians expect, that is what we will do.
Blaney cites the Emerson report on Coast Guard fleet aging and the deferred maintenance of the Louis S. St-Laurent while the Diefenbaker won't be operational for a decade, asking what the Liberal plan is to address the urgent needs of the Canadian Coast Guard.
Blaney cites the Emerson report, identifies the specific issue of deferred maintenance on the Louis S. St-Laurent, notes the Diefenbaker won't be operational for a decade, and raises the geopolitical context of Chinese and Russian navigation in the Northwest Passage.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, selon le rapport Emerson, non seulement la Garde cÎtiÚre du Canada manque de personnel, mais sa flotte est l'une des plus ùgées du monde, et le besoin de la renouveler est urgent. Or, on apprend que libéraux abandonnent l'entretien du seul brise-glace canadien, le Louis S. St-Laurent, alors que le Diefenbaker ne sera pas opérationnel avant une dizaine d'années. Alors que les Chinois et les Russes prévoient naviguer dans le passage du Nord-Ouest, quel est le plan des libéraux pour combler les besoins urgents de la Garde cÎtiÚre du Canada? What is the plan?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, according to the Emerson report, not only is the Canadian Coast Guard understaffed, but its fleet is one of the oldest in the world and is in urgent need of renewal. Nevertheless, we learned that the Liberals are not going to continue maintaining the only Canadian icebreaker, the Louis S. St-Laurent, even though the Diefenbaker will not be operational for about 10 years. With China and Russia planning to sail the Northwest Passage, how do the Liberals plan to meet the urgent needs of the Canadian Coast Guard? Quel est le plan?
Tootoo explains that the Louis S. St-Laurent dry dock contract was deferred due to lack of available space at the Davie shipyard and will proceed next year, ensuring the vessel can participate in the UNCLOS program in the Arctic this summer.
Tootoo explains the specific reason for the contract deferral (lack of available space at the Davie shipyard), confirms it will proceed next year, and links the vessel to the UNCLOS Arctic program this summer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as part of the Canadian Coast Guard's multi-year maintenance plan, PSPC issued an advance contract award notice to Davie shipyard to enter the Louis S. St-Laurent into dry dock for a retrofit and life-extension work. Due to lack of available space at the Davie shipyard, the contract has been deferred until next year. That will ensure that this iconic vessel of the Coast Guard will be able to participate in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea program taking place in the Arctic this summer.
Trudel cites examples of senators using publicly paid staff for home renovations and managing a tanning salon, asking when the government will tighten controls on these practices.
Trudel raises specific examples of Senate staff misuse (home renovations, tanning salon management) but frames the question in highly rhetorical terms and asks broadly when the government will clean up these practices.
Source text
Monsieur le PrĂ©sident, depuis des annĂ©es, le scandale des dĂ©penses des sĂ©nateurs choque la population. Les gens sont en colĂšre que des petits amis du rĂ©gime nommĂ©s sans lĂ©gitimitĂ© se servent de l'argent des contribuables comme un vrai bar ouvert. Qu'un sĂ©nateur utilise du personnel payĂ© par l'Ătat pour faire la rĂ©novation de sa rĂ©sidence ou pour gĂ©rer son salon de bronzage, c'est complĂštement rĂ©voltant. Quand le gouvernement va-t-il serrer la ceinture de ses privilĂ©giĂ©s et faire le mĂ©nage de ces pratiques qui n'ont tout simplement pas de bon sens?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Senate expense scandal has been upsetting people for years. Canadians are angry that government cronies, who were inappropriately appointed, are treating taxpayers' money like an all-you-can-eat buffet. It is completely outrageous for a senator to be using his staff members, who are on the public payroll, to organize his home renovations and manage his tanning salon. When will the government rein in these fat cats and clean up these practices that simply do not make any sense?
LeBlanc says the government will never accept abuse of taxpayer money and that the Senate has taken the situation in hand and changed some of its rules, encouraging it to continue toward openness and transparency.
LeBlanc makes a general commitment against abuse of taxpayer money and notes the Senate has changed some of its rules, but provides no specific action the government will take.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, nous avons toujours dit que les dépenses publiques et la gestion de l'argent public devraient se faire à un trÚs haut niveau et que, dans aucune circonstance, ce gouvernement ne va accepter que quelqu'un abuse de l'argent des contribuables. Le Sénat a pris cette situation en main. Ils ont changé une partie de leurs rÚgles. Nous les encourageons à continuer la marche vers l'ouverture et la transparence.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, we have always said that great care must be taken with government spending and the management of public funds, and that this government will not allow anyone, under any circumstances, to misuse taxpayers' money. The Senate has taken control of the situation. It has changed some of its rules. We encourage it to continue to work toward openness and transparency.
Blaikie cites senators using parliamentary staff for private tanning facilities and home renovations, and asks the government to join the NDP in demanding the Senate implement tighter expense limits, limits on taxpayer-funded travel, and a stronger Senate ethics office.
Blaikie cites specific examples (tanning facilities, home renovations) and proposes concrete measures (tightening expense limits, limiting taxpayer-funded travel, strengthening the Senate ethics office), asking the government to join in demanding their implementation.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, this week we are hearing of senators who are using their parliamentary staff to work in their private tanning facilities. We are hearing that they are using them to organize their home renovations. The Liberals congratulate themselves a lot in this House for talk about openness and transparency. However, we have recommended concrete action. We have talked about tightening the expense limits in the Senate, limiting taxpayer-funded travel, and strengthening the Senate ethics office. What we are asking for the government to do today is to stand in the House and join us in demanding the implementation of those rules by the Senate. Will it do it?
LeBlanc says those who abuse taxpayer money should be held to account and the money reimbursed, then pivots to stating this includes the money the New Democratic Party took for its satellite offices.
LeBlanc pivots entirely to an attack on NDP satellite offices rather than addressing the three specific Senate reform measures Blaikie proposed.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, as we have said, we have at all times understood the importance of managing taxpayer money in an appropriate way. We have thought that at any point those who are responsible for abusing or misusing taxpayer money should be held to account, and the money should be reimbursed. That includes the money that the New Democratic Party took for its satellite offices.
Why will the Prime Minister not ensure equipment funding for current projects like the Arctic offshore patrol ships and Halifax-class frigate upgrades rather than cutting the defence budget by $3.7 billion?
Cites a specific dollar figure ($3.7-billion) and names specific projects (Arctic offshore patrol ships, Halifax-class frigate upgrades) but frames the ask in rhetorical terms about the Prime Minister's will rather than a precise accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the sun is shining and the sky is bright blue today in Manitoba after electing a strong, stable Conservative majority government last night. Unfortunately, here in Ottawa, our military is entering another era of darkness. The Liberals' $3.7-billion defence cut from the defence budget are not only for future procurements, but they are also cutting the budget for current projects like the Arctic offshore patrol ships and the Halifax-class frigate upgrades. Why will the Prime Minister not get the equipment for our troops now?
The parliamentary secretary blamed a perpetual mismatch between the procurement cycle and the fiscal cycle left by the previous government and claimed no project funds are being withheld.
The parliamentary secretary denies funds are being cut but does not address the specific projects named, pivoting instead to blaming a 'perpetual mismatch' left by the previous government.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, it is passingly strange to get a question from the Conservatives about the fiscal mess left behind. There was a perpetual mismatch between the procurement cycle and the fiscal cycle, and the Minister of National Defence is now trying to rectify that. Accordingly, there are no funds that will be not applied to projects as they are needed.
Why is the Prime Minister cutting military funding and withholding funding for the Cyclone search and rescue helicopter, risking the safety of the Canadian Armed Forces?
Mentions the Cyclone helicopter decision and draws a historical comparison to the EH 101 cancellation, but the ask is broad and rhetorical ('Why is the Prime Minister so willing to put ⊠at risk'), lacking a precise accountable question.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal procurement process is failing our military. The decision to withhold funding for the Cyclone search and rescue helicopter reminds Canadians of the horrible Chrétien decision of the 1990s to cancel the EH 101 helicopters. Why is the Prime Minister so willing to put the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces at risk by cutting military funding?
The parliamentary secretary accused the previous government of lapsing military funding to achieve a 'bogus balanced budget' and of climbing in and out of 'fake airplanes' rather than aligning procurement and fiscal cycles.
The parliamentary secretary attacked the previous government's record on lapsing military funding and the 'fake airplanes' incident without addressing the Cyclone funding decision at all, and was cut off before completing his answer.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, that is from a member of Parliament who was part of a government that made lapsing military funding an art form in order to get to a bogus balanced budget. There are no monies being cut from projects. Had the members opposite spent more time getting the fiscal and procurement cycles in order instead of climbing in and out of fake airplanes, and did the hard work that is needed to match those cycles, then just possibly, the men and women in uniform would be getting theirâ
Given an Ottawa Citizen report that ongoing procurement projects including the offshore patrol ships, Cyclone helicopters, and CF-18 replacement are being frozen, will the minister assert his influence in cabinet to ensure these projects proceed?
Cites the Ottawa Citizen and names specific frozen projects (navires de patrouille extracÎtiers, hélicoptÚres Cyclone, remplacement des CF-18), but the ask is directed at the minister's internal influence rather than a specific policy or budget question.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, les libéraux ont déjà ramené la Défense nationale dans une période de noirceur. Ils ont reporté aprÚs les prochaines élections l'acquisition de matériel crucial, mais ils font encore pire, comme le rapporte le Ottawa Citizen. En effet, ils mettent sur la glace les projets d'acquisition déjà en cours, comme les navires de patrouille extracÎtiers, l'acquisition des hélicoptÚres Cyclone et le remplacement des CF-18. Le ministre va-t-il nous montrer quel poids il a dans ce gouvernement? Va-t-il se tenir debout et s'assurer que ces projets continuent d'aller de l'avant?
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have already sunk the Department of National Defence into darkness. They have put off some crucial procurements until after the next election, but that is not the worst of it, as reported in the Ottawa Citizen. The Liberals are putting on hold procurement projects that are already under way, such as offshore patrol ships, Cyclone helicopters, and the CF-18 replacements. Will the minister show us what kind of weight he has in this government? Will he step up and ensure that these projects continue to move forward?
The parliamentary secretary attributed the situation to misalignment of procurement and fiscal cycles left by the previous government and stated that matters are now being funded as they become due.
The parliamentary secretary again blamed the previous government's procurement-fiscal cycle mismatch and gave only a vague assurance that matters are being funded as they become due, without addressing the named projects.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, once again, had the former government, the party opposite, actually done its work, then the procurement cycle would have matched the fiscal cycle and accordingly, we possibly would have had some procurements met. The mess left behind on the procurement cycle by the party opposite means that we are having to realign all of our fiscal priorities. Accordingly, we are now funding matters as they become due.
Would the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour provide an update on current participation in the Canada jobs program?
A government-backbench softball asking the minister for an update on the Canada jobs program with no critical accountability element.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, constituents in my riding celebrated the announcement by the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour to greatly increase the funding available through the Canada jobs program. Considering the reaction, I had no doubt that we would see more employers take advantage of this opportunity and help start to train the future workforce of our country. Would the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour please give the House an update on the current state of participation in regard to the Canada jobs program?
Funding for Canada summer jobs was doubled this year; the government is on track to create 70,000 youth jobs this summer, with applications up 30% at over 36,000.
The minister provided specific numbers â funding doubled, 70,000 jobs targeted, applications up 30% with over 36,000 applications â directly answering the update request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton WestâAncasterâDundas is absolutely correct. Funding was doubled for Canada summer jobs this year, and we are on track to create 70,000 jobs for youth this summer. Applications are up 30% from the year before, with over 36,000 applications. It means more jobs and opportunity in Hamilton and each and every riding across Canada.
What is the Liberal government's position on Quebec's Bill 74, which would force federally regulated Internet service providers to block access to Internet gaming sites, raising concerns about net neutrality and censorship?
Identifies a specific piece of legislation (Bill 74) and a specific policy concern (net neutrality and censorship of Internet gaming sites), with a clear ask for the government's position, though framed somewhat rhetorically with the poker metaphor.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals may not realize it but they are playing a very high-stakes poker game with the Government of Quebec. Bill 74 would allow the Government of Quebec to force federally regulated Internet service providers to act as censors, blocking Quebeckers' access to Internet gaming sites. This clearly raises concerns about Quebeckers' rights to the Internet and censorship. Will the Liberals show their hand and tell us what their position is on this legislation?
The minister stated the government believes in net neutrality and will have ongoing discussions with Quebec counterparts regarding Bill 74.
The minister stated a belief in net neutrality and mentioned ongoing discussions with Quebec counterparts but did not specify the government's position on Bill 74 itself or any concrete action planned.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, we believe in net neutrality. We will be having ongoing discussions with our counterparts in Quebec regarding that question. I had the opportunity of meeting many stakeholders that have raised issues regarding that particular bill. It will be a pleasure to have further discussions on this subject.
Given troubling committee testimony about technology failures, HR challenges, and tsunami risks, will the government keep the Comox MCTS centre open rather than proceeding with its May 10 closure?
Cites a specific closure date (May 10), references committee testimony on technology failures, HR challenges, and tsunami risks, and asks a clear yes-or-no question about keeping the Comox MCTS centre open.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, the Comox coast guard centre is slated for closure on May 10. We have heard troubling testimony at committee around the technology failures, HR challenges, and even possible tsunami risks, yet the minister is showing a disregard for the committee, for Parliament, and for residents. Will the government protect our coastal communities and keep the Comox MCTS centre open, or will it just keep repeating the same excuses as the Conservatives used while it shuts down this important marine safety centre?
The minister confirmed the May 10 closure, noting staff were informed in 2014 and the modernization project began in 2007, and stated the government is moving forward with the plan.
The minister confirmed the closure date and noted staff were notified in 2014, framing it as part of a modernization project begun in 2007, but did not address the specific safety concerns raised in committee testimony or commit to any review.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, again I rise to respond to this question. As the member pointed out, the staff were notified late last month exactly when the closure would happen, although they were notified that the closure would happen in 2014. The modernization of the centre has been a long-standing project that began in 2007, and the closure of the Comox station is the last one to be done. We are moving forward with that plan.
What steps does the government intend to take to support, regulate, and develop autonomous vehicles in Canada?
A government-backbench question inviting the minister to discuss autonomous vehicle policy with no accountability element or specific ask.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, for all intents and purposes the driverless car is quite literally at our doorstep. La technologie en cette matiÚre progresse rapidement. Dans certains pays, des sommes importantes sont investies, et de plus en plus de projets portant sur la voiture autonome font leur apparition. Quels gestes le gouvernement entend-il poser pour soutenir, encadrer et développer la voiture autonome au Canada?
The minister highlighted his focus on innovation in transportation for safety and the economy, noting that connected and automated vehicles and their regulation are key innovation areas, and that the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications has agreed to conduct in-depth studies on these vehicles.
The minister expressed commitment to innovation and road safety and mentioned that the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications accepted his proposal for in-depth studies on connected and automated vehicles, providing some relevant information but no concrete policy details.
Source text
Monsieur le Président, je remercie mon collÚgue de son excellente question, étant donné l'importance que j'accorde à l'innovation dans le secteur des transports, afin d'améliorer non seulement la sécurité sur nos routes, mais également l'économie canadienne. Les véhicules connectés et automatisés et leur réglementation sont d'ailleurs des secteurs d'innovation incontournables. Je suis également ravi que le Comité sénatorial permanent des transports et des communications ait accepté ma proposition de mener des études approfondies sur ces véhicules.
Hansard translation: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question, especially since I believe innovation in the transport sector is extremely important, so that we can improve safety on our roads and boost the Canadian economy. Connected and automated vehicles and the regulation of these vehicles are fundamental sectors of innovation. I am also pleased that the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications accepted my proposal to carry out comprehensive studies on these vehicles.
Given committee testimony that the outsourcing of RCMP occupational health to provincial compensation boards under clauses 40 and 42 of Bill C-7 could result in thousands of dollars less compensation for RCMP members at the same Lloydminster detachment depending on which provincial side they work from, will the minister strike those clauses?
Highly specific: names Bill C-7, cites specific clauses (40 and 42), references concrete committee testimony about the Lloydminster detachment disparity, and asks a precise question about striking those clauses.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness proposed outsourcing RCMP occupational health to provincial compensation boards in Bill C-7, he claimed that compensation would be reasonably consistent across the country. Yesterday in committee, we heard that in Lloydminster in his own province this could result in thousands less for one RCMP member depending on which detachment that officer came from, the Saskatchewan side or the Alberta side. When will the minister acknowledge our concerns about fair treatment and strike clauses 40 and 42 from Bill C-7?
The minister said the government respects parliamentary committee work and that he and the President of the Treasury Board would be more than happy to entertain committee suggestions on the shape of the legislation.
The minister indicated openness to committee recommendations and said he and the President of the Treasury Board would be happy to entertain committee advice, but did not commit to striking clauses 40 and 42 or directly address the Lloydminster concern.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, our government has indicated a new regard for the work of parliamentarians on parliamentary committees. The Prime Minister has made it clear that he wants to see the work of parliamentarians be adequately supported and invigorated. If the committee which is hearing all of the evidence with respect to this matter has suggestions to make about the shape of the legislation, the President of the Treasury Board and I would be more than happy to entertain that advice.
Will the Prime Minister commit to replacing Canada's current climate target â still the weakest in the G7 and unchanged from the previous government â with a tougher target, and do so soon?
Identifies a specific concern (Canada's climate target being the weakest in the G7 and identical to the previous government's), but the ask is broadly rhetorical ('please reassure Canadians') rather than a precise commitment request.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership in Paris and for attending the upcoming Earth Day signing at the United Nations. However, our current target does not reflect that leadership. Our current target does not meet the climate urgency and emergency situation we face. In fact, it is still the weakest target in the G7. It is still the target of the previous government. It is urgently required that we ratchet up our target. Will the Prime Minister please reassure Canadians that we plan to put in place a tougher target and soon? That would be leadership.
The Prime Minister noted the Paris Agreement included commitments to increasing ambition and said the government is working with provinces, municipalities, industry, and individuals to build a strong economy while protecting the environment, contrasting this with the previous government's decade of inaction.
The Prime Minister referenced the Paris Agreement's ambition-ratcheting mechanism and listed consultations underway with provinces and others, but did not commit to a tougher target or timeline, and deflected by criticizing the previous government's 10-year record.
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her question and for her hard work on the environment, including with us in Paris. When we talked about and actually got to an agreement, the talks were about increasing ambition of targets for countries like Canada and countries around the world as we move forward. We are working with the provinces, municipalities, industry, business, and with individuals to make sure that we continue to build a strong economy while protecting the environment in a way that for 10 years the previous government was unable to do.
This exchange consisted only of applause from hon. members and contained no substantive question or answer.
- Some hon. members
Source text
Hear, hear!
Opposition Leader Ambrose (CPC) sought unanimous consent for a motion declaring that ISIL is responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity against Christians, Yazidis, and Shia Muslims in Syria and Iraq, but consent was denied; a revised motion by Ms. Goldsmith-Jones (Lib) describing the atrocities as of a genocidal nature and calling for an independent investigation including into possible genocide also failed to receive unanimous consent.
- CPC Rona Ambrose
- Some hon. members
- Ms. Pam Goldsmith-Jones
Source text
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier today the House of Commons in the United Kingdom voted unanimously to recognize that Christians, Yazidis and other ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq and Syria were suffering genocide at the hands of ISIS. On March 15, U.S. House of Representatives also unanimously declared that genocide was taking place in Iraq and Syria by ISIS. In light of this and after discussions that have taken place among all parties, I hope you will find unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, for the following motion: That the House declare that ISIL is responsible for atrocities such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, against ethnic and religious groups, namely, but not limited to, Christians, Yazidis and Shia Muslims in Syrian and Iraq, and that it strongly condemn these atrocities and call for an independent investigation and for perpetrators to be brought to justice.
Agreed. No.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House declare that ISIL is responsible for atrocities, war crimes and crimes against humanity of a genocidal nature against ethnic and religious groups, namely, but not limited to, Christians, Yazidis and Shia Muslims in Syria and Iraq, and that it strongly condemn these atrocities and call for an independent investigation, including into possible genocide, and for perpetrators to be brought to justice.
Agreed. No.